Poll Should Button now take a supporting role to Hamilton

[Mephistopheles]

I voted no and the reason I voted no is because I do not believe that team orders should ever be used to change the outcome of a race.

• It is demeaning to the driver that is being asked to move aside.
• It falsifies the true result.
• The driver who benefits can never truly say he won on his own merit and skill and therefore detracts from his achievements.
• Punters who bet on the outcome of a race can be robbed by the sudden unexpected implementation of team orders.
• It is tantamount to cheating.

I would feel exactly the same way if it were Button leading Hamilton at this stage in the championship, I would not like it if Lewis were to be given team orders......

 

[Brogan]

In which case, according to your criteria, most, if not all of Schumacher's titles are invalid.

Raikkonen's WDC in 2007 is invalid as they deliberately held Massa in the pits at Brazil to give him the lead.

Vettel...

etc.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Maybe not invalid but certainly won with with a question mark over them.

Which means in the future people can say yes but he got helped to that title by his team mate and so, is it as good as so and so's was.

Neither Lewis Hamilton's or Jenson Buttons titles were won via team orders and to be honest I believe that Lewis likes it that way...

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Not trying to open a can of worms here... but Kovalainen seemed very easy to pass at both Silverstone and Hockenheim in 2008. He has also hinted that he didn't get the best strategies and said he knows what went wrong when he was at McLaren.

People forget that within F1 there is a WDC and a WCC championship. However just because there is an individual and team contest it does not mean the two are exclusive. Personally I don't think it means a title is devalued because of team orders. The only problem I have with them is when they are used uneccessarily (such as Austria 2002) or when they are against the regulations (Germany 2010).

I believe Moss helped Fangio and Coulthard helped Hakkinen, does this mean two greats of the sport have questions marks over them? Not for me, but I can understand your viewpoint.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Moss also helped Hawthorne win the tittle but he didn't do it through team orders he did it because he is and always will be a true sportsman.

How would it be if say the beast was given an order by the team to allow Bolt to win? It would be good for the team but is it sport?

The only answer is, no it is not sport.

And besides which both Lewis and Jenson are world champions they have earned their place in there chosen sport and neither of them deserve the indignity of team orders especially when to the team the main thing that matters when it come to finance is the WCC and not the WDC.

McLaren and Williams in particular have especially coveted the WCC so I can't see them implementing team orders...

 

[racecub]

@ no-FIAt-please I cant remember all the inns and outs of Heikki V Hamilton, but I'm pretty sure that the Silverstone overtake that is frequently sited as evidence that Heikki had team orders to move over and play number 2, was in fact a case of them being on different strategies. And this was in the refuelling era, when different strategies were even more different than they are today. Bit like Jenson being asked to not worry about Lewis at Silverstone this year-different strategy...cept in this case Jenson did worry, quite a lot

 

[no-FIAt-please]

With regards to Moss surely it doesn't matter if it was an order or not, what matters is that some people may not consider Hawthorne's title worthy.

Your analogy with sprinting doesn't relate to F1 too well. Sprint races are a completely individual sport, it is only in relay races in which the runners race as a team. Conversely in F1 there is only one type of race, a Grand Prix, here the drivers race both for themselves and their team at the same time which makes the distinction more difficult.

There's also the idea that the driver being told to move over is doing it for the team if he himself is unable to win the WDC but his team-mate can. This allows the team to add a WDC to it's tally which is a great benefit to a team because it makes them more prestigous and can also bring financial benefits. After all both drivers are still members of the team even if they have an individual championship.

I think we've veered a bit off topic now... oops

 

[Mephistopheles]

racecub the first part of your post I agree with the second bit not so much, my feeling is that at Silverstone Jenson wanted to let Lewis past but he needed to do it where it meant he would loose no time and not be under attack from Romain so he chose copse where he thought he could defend against Romain going into Maggots but unfortunately he didn't realise the speed of Romain and how much it would cost him by lifting off, I know you think he just let Romain through but that is just not the case.

Sometimes people should look at the whole picture and not just assume things...

 

[Mephistopheles]

Maybe you are right no-FIAt-please but my feelings on team orders will never change, I don't even like the pace makers in the distance running or the the cycle sprints...

Every athlete for himself that's what I believe in and if I were an athlete or a race car driver I would give no quarter to my team mate, absolutely none, because once you do that you are cheating yourself and are no longer fit to call yourself a competitor.

 

[Wombcat]

Mephistopheles firstly (but offtopic) there's a difference between pacemakers in cycling and in athletics. In athletics, the pacemakers are hired by the organization, because they want a fast race (world record). So they work for all athletes. I don't like that.
In cycling (which I have done myself for years, not on a professional level though), the riders are members of a team and they want one of their team to win. That means a tactical element comes into it. It's a team effort. Without a team it's much harder to win.

In motorracing the driver is actualy even more dependant of the team than in cycling. Because in cycling you could get yourself a bike and start racing (theoretically at least). In motorracing you can´t really do it all yourself, you can´t really just buy a car and start racing. Maybe at the lower levels, but even then you´d very soon need several others to help you. The mechanics in cycling are much simpler and easier to do yourself. Besides that there´s not really a big difference between the bike Wiggins won the tour with and mine (except that he also has a timetrail bike, which I don't). I'm pretty sure that if you put him on my bike in the regular stages, he'd still have a very good shot at the victory. You can't do that in motorracing. There's much more technology involved. You need people to work on that. So in motorracing it´s much more a teameffort than just a drivers´ effort. Without a team, it's impossible to win.
Which in my opinion means that if the team sees it in the benefit of the team that a certain dirver wins, it´s their right to make that decision. As long as they don´t use the other driver to hold up their competitors.
And also don´t forget that the team pays the driver!

 

[Galahad]

The idealist in me says never, the pragmatist says yes. The team will be most interested in winning the Constructors' Championship, and a demotivated Button might be the difference between 1st and 2nd there - if Jenson would be demotivated in that way, of course, which is hard to predict from this distance.

I'm sure this is why teams try to put these decisions off until the last possible moment, to the extent that the driver is told to move over mid-race.

 

[Lewywo4]

@ no-FIAt-please I cant remember all the inns and outs of Heikki V Hamilton, but I'm pretty sure that the Silverstone overtake that is frequently sited as evidence that Heikki had team orders to move over and play number 2, was in fact a case of them being on different strategies.

If Heikki had team orders to move over and play numer 2 , and fall in behind Lewis at Siverstone, and if that being the case racecub.......Why didn't Kovalainen just stay and fall in behind Lewis , and act as a true wingman, but he didn't, because he couldn't keep up with Hamilton's pace.

 

[racecub]

lewymp4 Number2 by default, not by team orders.(i really like Heikki, and he's a handy driver, but not as fast as Lewis)

 

[teabagyokel]

When Hamilton passed Kovalainen at Hockenheim very easily!

 

[racecub]

Yeah but Heiki's an intelligent guy, he realised what others miss, DIFFERENT STRATEGY! No point pissing the boss off when you're not even racing the guy. And his subsequent speed relative to Lewis proved his decision was a sensible option.

 

[MCLS]

Kovalainen's pace wasn't that bad at Silverstone, in the dry on the Friday and Saturday he had the measure of Hamilton. After Hamilton passed Kovalainen he was comfortable in second until he span, had he not had a few excursions he might have gotten on the podium, that, along with a tactical dream from Honda with Barrichello prevented that.

 

[teabagyokel]

racecub - It was after the final pitstop, it was not different strategy but different pace. Kovalainen moved over; that's not an implied criticism of Hamilton. That German GP performance from Hamilton is one of my favourites; and it prevented Nelsinho getting a win, thank God! It does show that McLaren use team orders when it is eminently sensible to do so.

 

[racecub]

Yes. It was after the last pitstop, but it wasn't quite that simple.Events placed Lewis and Heiki on different strategies. McLaren mistakenly (unusual for McLaren I know)did not bring Lewis in and all the other leaders pitted when the safety car came out for Glock, placing Lewis at a disadvantage. Despite pushing to make up a pitstop window, he came out just behind Heiki. heiki's tyres were now 12 laps old and Lewis had new ones. Lewis passed Massa and Piquet as easily as he passed Heiki, to regain the lead. Heiki didn't have the speed as he wasn't able to follow Lewis through and claim 2nd place.Lewis' fastest lap was 0.456s faster than Kovalainen’s. So yes I'd agree pace was an issue, but also Lewis on new tyres was an issue and Heiki could see this.

 

[siffert_fan]

I think it all comes down to how narrow your definition of "team orders" is. To me, that phrase is interchangeable with "team preference". Giving one driver consistent pit strategy preference, or more testing days etc is, to me, the same as "Fernando is faster than you". It is just not so obvious. So to me, it is impossible to claim that Joe Blow's title(s) are tainted but Sir Lancelot's are pure as the driven snow .

 

[racecub]

I think that's a very good point. Team preference has a lot to answer for. Or team principal preference probably, since he's calling the shots. It probably decides who, when and if the call is made. And I wonder how objective the team principal is when preferencing a driver? A minefield here